Monday, 5 November 2007

A mother died in a Shropshire hospital after refusing a blood transfusion when complications set in following the birth of her twins. Jehovah's Witnesses are forbidden from having blood transfusions, meaning doctors were powerless to save 22-year-old Emma Gough.

Terry Lovejoy, a spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses in Telford, said: "We share the family's very real grief".

Of course, he failed to acknowledge the completely avoidable nature of a death that leaves the newborn twins without a mother. Not that the doctors would have been wise to intervene. Across the Irish Sea, Dublin's Coombe Women's Hospital is currently pursuing a case against a Jehovah's Witness who has threatened to sue the hospital after she was given a blood transfusion following massive blood-loss during childbirth. The woman, who had lost 80% of her blood, told the court the transfusion was "like a rape". The hospital says it was only informed of the woman's objections "through a friend" who was also a Jehovah's Witness, and claims "constitutional rights to freedom of conscience and free practice of religion do not extend to enabling her to decline appropriate medical treatment."

Update: I've closed comments on this post as I keep having to moderate long, nonsensical comments which seem to contain long swathes of quotes from web pages, rather than original statements.

16
comments:

Anonymous
said...

The WatchTower Society refuses to permit Jehovah's Witnesses to accept any blood transfusions. This religious practice only started in 1945.

Misinterpreting the Old Testament prohibition against eating animal blood as a routine food item, the WatchTower Society began teaching in 1945 that receiving a blood transfusion was "eating human blood". Jehovah's Witnesses believe that receiving an infusion of human blood into their body's circulatory system is scientifically the exact same thing as eating or ingesting blood into their body's digestive system.

"A patient in the hospital maybe fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital's own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one's system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating through his veins." -- The WATCHTOWER magazine, July 1, 1951.

Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that when human blood is transfused into their body's circulatory system that the transfused human blood remains to be human blood and continues to function as human blood. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that if blood is eaten, then the ingested blood enters the body's digestive system, where the blood would be treated by the body exactly the same as it would treat a hotdog, a potato chip, or any other food item. Ingested blood would be completely digested and broken down into proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and waste; which are then either assimilated or excreted by the body.

The WatchTower Society uses scriptures which speak about the blood of slaughtered animals to teach Jehovah's Witnesses that blood is "sacred" because blood is the "symbol of life". Then, the WatchTower Society turns around and requires Jehovah's Witnesses to sacrifice their own "life" to maintain the alleged "sacredness" of a "symbol" of the very thing they are sacrificing -- their life. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that the WatchTower doctrine on blood moronically places a higher value on the SYMBOL than it does on the THING SYMBOLIZED.

In fact, the Old Testament scriptures permitted the eating of unbled animal meat, which the Bible treats exactly the same as eating animal blood itself. In isolated occasions, when humans needed to eat unbled meat in order to sustain their own human life, the Mosaic Law permitted such, but then required the eaters to fulfill the requirements of being "unclean" for a few days. Thus, the Bible recognized that the sustaining of human life was more "sacred" than maintaining the sacredness of animal blood. To do otherwise would be doing exactly what the moronic WatchTower Society does. It would make the SYMBOL more SACRED than the THING SYMBOLIZED.

In fact, the WatchTower Society is leading Jehovah's Witnesses to disobey GOD and violate the Holy Scriptures in one of the most serious ways possible. Because humans were created in GOD's image, GOD considers human life sacred. A Jehovah's Witness who sacrifices their SACRED LIFE in order to maintain the sacredness of a SYMBOL of that SACRED LIFE varies little from those who profane life by committing suicide. Those Jehovah's Witness Elders who teach and police this moronic doctrine vary little from common accessories to murder. The Bible is fairly clear in how GOD views murder, and how He deals with Murderers.

This moronic twisting of scripture would be laughable if not for the fact that it has lead to the pointless deaths of numerous Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, and it will continue to lead to the pointless deaths of many more Jehovah's Witnesses in the future.

SUMMARIES OF 300 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES LAWSUITS & COURT CASES

The following website summarizes over 315 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 200+ cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:

DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

Many Jehovah's Witnesses men,women and children die every year worldwide due to blood transfusion ban.Rank & file Jehovah's Witness are indoctrinated to be scared to death of blood.

FYI 1) JW's DO USE many parts aka 'fractions' aka components of blood,so if it's 'sacred' to God why the hypocritical contradiction flip-flop? 2) They USE blood collections that are donated by Red cross and others but don't donate back,more hypocrisy. 3) The Watchtower promotes and praises bloodless elective surgeries,this is a great advancement indeed.BUT it's no good to me if I am bleeding to death from a car crash and lose half my blood volume and need EMERGENCY blood transfusion. The Watchtower's rules against blood transfusions will eventually be abolished (very gradually to reduce wrongful death lawsuit liability) even now most of the blood 'components' are allowed.

In 20 years there will be artificial blood and the Red Cross will go on with other noble deeds.

It is very difficult for people who have no faith or a non-Bible based religion, such as the two who posted above, to understand our belief.

It is not based on an 'old testament' teaching, but on the entire Bible, specifically the edict given to Noah and his offspring to NOT use blood, and to Christians, specifically stating to avoid blood, classing it as tantamount to fornication.

No form of fornication is permitted for CHRISTIANS, but others will do as they wish.

Similarly, no form of BLOOD is permitted for CHRISTIANS. However, others who wish to do so are not subject to any interference by us.

Yes, it is very sad the lady died. It would be sadder still, had she not followed Jehovah's laws and still died. Then, she would have no future under Biblical law.

To us, she is not dead, but, as Jesus said, is sleeping, awaiting an awakening known Biblically as the resurrection. Most religions do not believe in that teaching. We do. We also believe that this woman, as well as others who have lost their lives due to war, neutral stance in the stalags of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao and many murdered in various wars worldwide will also return in 'the day' known as the resurrection.

If anyone would like the full story about this or any other issue, feel free to contact your local Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's witnesses. If you do not have one locally, you may write us at:

Watchtower PublicationsThe Ridgeway, London NW7 1RN

You may ask for a sample of our literature or a home Bible study at no cost to you.

Up close and personal Jehovah's Witnesses can be wolves in sheep's clothing.Think about this-When the devil comes knocking on your door he may not have the 'dark goth look'.They could be smartly dressed and wielding the Christian Bible.

The central core dogma of the Watchtower is Jesus second coming (invisibly) in 1914 and is a lie.Jehovah's Witnesses are a spin-off of the man made Millerite movement of 1840.A destructive cult of false teachings, that frequently result in spiritual and psychological abuse, as well as needless deaths (bogus blood transfusion ban).

Yes,you can 'check out anytime you want but you can never leave',because they can and will hold your family hostage.

The Watchtower is a truly Orwellian world.----Danny Haszard Jehovah's Witness X 33 years and 3rd generation

I wish the woman would have read more about her own religion, anyone who has ever read more than one issue of "The Watchtower." can clearly see this whole supposed idealism these people live by directly contradicts itself in every way possible, for instance the Jehova's Witnesses claim than in death you are unconcious yet at the same time they claim you are concious and everlasting in heaven or hell the moment you die and ascend or descend in either direction, dont follow a religion or ideal that contradicts itself in that way chances are its completely absurd.

well, ano, you miss the real point. she is NOT dead, unless you are GOD. i do not think you are . see, if she died obeying Jehovah's laws, she will be brought back to life. that is what makes us head & shoulders above all other religions. we believe in the resurrection.

i truly wish you did. you would see the revelation of john, 21:1-4, john 11:24-27. i ask you the same question that was asked of martha: DO YOU BELIEVE THIS?

only YOU can answer that.

len

ps: the verses given to CHRISTIANS under holy spirit did not say do not 'eat' blood; it said ABSTAIN FROM, keep away from, avoid.

As usual on comments in these sort of articles I've read a whole load of sweeping, unfounded generalisations written by people with no understanding or concept of the faith of a Jehovah's Witness. Whether you want to split hairs over our "interpretation" of what is a pretty clear-cut directive in the Bible or not, at least respect our right to make our own decisions on how we live our own lives.

All I'll say in this case is that every year, hundreds of thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. Of those, 99% make a full recovery and nobody else is any the wiser because it's not "interesting". Possibly less than 1% do sadly die as a result of their moral and religiously-based stand and then it's front page headlines, because that's newsworthy.

comment to len,I am a ex-jw(and proud I'll use my real name tonya prigg) and having a mother who I love dearly who has went through 2 cancer operations and is unfortunately still a jw i cringe at your flipant attitude torwards life and death. I spent days in the hospital worried about my mother if she would ever need blood to save her life I was powerless to do anything because of no blood paper she signed. I learned more about the twisted medical advice and flip -flop prophecies years later after I left the cult. I ask you this question: What is the difference between excepting a organ transplant and blood?? Why were you againt organ transplants and now you except them? Why do you except the components made up in blood ,but not all blood? You were against vaccinations,now you aren't. JWS were against aluminium which they believed caused cancer. At one time they believed rabies was a fairy tale it didn't exist! (Checkout:www.freeminds.org/history/quackery.htm) Who knows how many lives were lost believing this medical quackery. At one time JWS celebrated xmas,birthdays now they don't. JWS made many false prophecies of the end of the world:1975,1914,1918.(There were at least 5 false predictions but I can't remember all of them) JWS forget the scripture Deut.18:20-22 "Beware of false prophecies' I was brainwashed growing up this is the true religion.The way to find the "truth" is ask yourself would a true religion make that many errors and flip-flop doctrines. I was never taught the history of the origination of jehovah's witness or of Charles Russell or Beth sarim the mansion that judge Rutherford built for the apostles that never came, so he ended up living in it. In my opinion the watchtower tract society and governing body is a big buisness you have the perfect workers ,JWS work for donations and never get paid. I believe the JWs most are nice people just like I was but misguided. Also the New Worlds Translation becareful reading scripture errors. Also the borganisation preaches about being no part of the world but why do they have shares in armament checkout:www.cafebabel.com/eng/article/16199/vendors-of-paradise-in-articlexvi-html I suggest all JWS to read "Crisis Of Conscience by ex- jw governing body member Raymond Franz. I am not saying not to worship god all i am saying ask questions,read the history of JWS you will be suprised in what you find. (I asked questions,and got in trouble)do your research into what you are getting into don't go in with blind faith. I go by god's word the bible. You have a mind use it.

could you have someone go thru that paragraph and reformat it so i could read it?

check the spelling, grammar, split the paragraphs properly, please.

my attitude is of no concern of yours. i am glad your mother came out all right. most do. if you want to disobey jehovah, feel free to do so.

i would like to get the same from you, but most hatemongers, which, i you check the definition, applies directly to your spewings, want us to follow them.

sorry, i follow the christ. i do not follow, russell, rutherford, knorr, etc. nor to i follow the watchtower. i read it, and i read it with the bible.

as far as ray, please, call him. ask him who i am. he was a circuit servant thru the chicago area in the spanish. i knew him at one time. he very likely remembered me. i was usually with ray castaneda and ray rivera.

go ask him. really. oh. and please get the corrections made for the paragraph you posted. and advise me when it has been reposted.

comment to len, I am not a hate-monger. Not once in my comment did I mention the word! Yes i checked the definition. I typed how upset I was about the doctrines and the only thing I am guilty of is spewing out truth ! I mentioned I was upset over your flippant attitude on life and death. God gave us a wonderful gift our body and we should take care of it.(Excuse me for all my grammer errors in last post I was typing too fast) But if that is your big concern about my grammer errors you have a big problem. If you took this much of a concern when examining the scripture errors in The New World Translation Bible that the JWS use maybe we could have a good discussion on this blog. I am a very caring person and I care about people. My concern is The organization should feel responsible for all the lives they are responsible for. I question their flip-flop doctrines scripture errors ,false prophecies. God is truth. God's word is the truth and truth is the bible and the bible NEVER changes. It never has "New Light" I feel people should research their religion. Learn the history. I am an african american/indian/italian women and I was upset about Charles Taze Russell's racial views on negros. It is one of his publications. I sense you are angry probably because of me using the word"brainwash" and"cult" well when you can't have independent thinking that's what it is. Back to my mother my mother should be able to make her own choice about blood not rely on a misinterpeted doctrine that the Watch Tower Socety and The Governing Body delivers. Also you mentioned Raymond Franz. Wow I really hit a nerve with you with that name. Have you ever read his books? Why haven't you read his books. After reading his books I never met him before in my life but I felt the saddness,compassion,caring he had when he told his story. He really cared about people and was very concerned about the doctrine errors and scripture errors,prophecy errors. I read all kinds of books. When I was a JW I read the watchtower tract society publications besides library books. But I learned quick I wasn't aloud to read any other literature besides JW publications I was told you shouldn't do that, it would question your faith and bring in doubt. I wasn't questioning my faith in god,but the doctrines and prophecies from the Governing Body. You never answer why you won't take whole blood,but you'll take components of blood? Why do you except organ transplants now,but you didn't before? Why except vaccinations now,but you never before? Why is the organization have shares in weapons? Aren't you suppose to be no part of the world? Why did you celebrate xmas and birthdays but now you don't? Remeber the truth NEVER changes and god is truth and the truth is the bible which NEVER changes.(Pardon me if I made any grammer errors in this comment,since that seems to be your main concern and not about the many people who are studying this cult and may have questions.) And yes I call it a cult because you are not aloud independent thinking. By the way I am a woman and not a man. My name is tonya prigg

we have no 'rules'. we have a bible. in the bible, we have laws and principles. if you like them, fine. obey them. if you do NOT like them, still fine. disobey them. i can not stop you. no one can stop you.

it is a free planet, after all. if you wish to disobey Jehovah's edit of 'abstain from blood, things strangled and fornication' you must be prepared to face the consequences: disease, discomfort and disappear. you will die.

remember, it is not YOUR life. it is Jehovah's life, lent to you. he lets you have it with the understanding that you will use it as instructed.

the silliness about russell: read the source. it was another church that posted the story. he merely cited it. at that time, he believed some churches were, in fact, of a 'christian nature' and would return to christ as presented in the bible in these end times. he was wrong. they did not return. they just stayed away.

as far as all these weblogs about 3-4 thousand stories, i do not have time to look at that silliness. i suggest you not waste YOUR time engaged in that, but again, that is your choice.

finally, as far as the NWT and its accuracy:

it is fine. show me ERRORS, not just opinions differences, and we can discuss them.

i have been in the spanish cong since 1967. we did not even HAVE the NWT when i started. we used the torres amat, version moderna and nacar colunga. and we did fine, except it was OLD spanish.

not modern as we speak.

ditto the king jaime. old english.

again, show me errors, i will discuss them.

in conclusion, fear the true god [jehovah] and keep his commandments. that is the rule for all mankind.

coment to len,It's me tonya again .You won't answer any of my questions, that's okay. I'll at least answer one of yours. About scripture errors in NWT well here they are:The Greek word “Kurios” meaning “Lord” is mistranslated as “Jehovah” or “Jehovah’s.”

Romans 4:3 Galatians 3:6 Colossians 3:16 James 2:23 The Greek word “en” meaning “in” is paraphrased as “in union with” to support the Watchtower teaching that Christians support the cause of Christ, but do not have Christ dwelling within them.

Matthew 25:46 The Greek words “kai theos en ho logos” are mistranslated as “the Word was a god,” instead of “the Word was God.” This is a distortion of the text as the word “a” is not in the Greek, but was added by the New World Translators to make the Word (Jesus) “a” second “god” who is separate from God the Father.

John 1:1 The Greek words “ego eimi” meaning “I am” are mistranslated as “I have been” to obscure the connection between Jesus being the "I Am" Jehovah God of Exodus 3:14.

John 8:58 The word “me” is omitted in “ask Me anything” to support the Watchtower claim that Jesus is not worthy to receive prayer.

John 14:14 The Greek word “ginoskosin” meaning “to know, intimately” is mistranslated as “taking in knowledge of” to support the Watchtower doctrine that accurate knowledge is necessary for eternal life. Changing this translation from “know You” (as all other Bible translations have it) to “taking in knowledge of You” shifts the focus from a personal relationship with God to a mere intellectual study of God to gain eternal life.

John 17:3 The English word “son” in “blood of his own [son]” is added in brackets without any support in the Greek text. This demonstrates the length that the Watchtower goes to deny that Jesus is the God who shed His own blood for us.

Acts 20:28 The Greek phrase, “he petra de en ho Kristos” meaning “and the rock was Christ” is mistranslated as “and that rock mass meant the Christ”. Again, this shifts the focus from Jesus being the Jehovah God, Rock of Israel (Isaiah 30:29).

1 Corinthians 10:4 In the 1984 edition of the New World Translation, the English word “other” is added in brackets to indicate that the word does not occur in the Greek text. The translators of the New World Translation added the word “other” in “gave him the name that is above every [other] name” to support the Watchtower teaching that the name “Jehovah” is superior to the name “Jesus.” Only in recent editions of the New World Translation do we see the word inserted with brackets surrounding it. All editions from 1950 to 1981 had “other” added without brackets making it seem as if this word is in the original Greek text. On page 27 of the February 1, 1992 Watchtower magazine, we again see Philippians 2:9 being quoted without the brackets being used around the word “other.” This again demonstrates the deep rooted bias of the Watchtower Society against Jesus possessing a name equal and superior to name “Jehovah.”

Philippians 2:9 Translation bias against the eternal nature of Jesus Christ as Creator God is clearly seen in the New World Translation’s insertion of the word “other” in reference to Jesus’ work in creation. By adding the word “other” to “all things” so that it reads “by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,” the Watchtower is able to justify its claim that Jehovah God created Jesus first and then used Jesus as His creative agent for the rest of creation. However, Scripture proclaims that Jesus is the Creator of “all things,” for He has always existed as the uncreated, “everlasting father” --possessor of eternity (Isaiah 9:6). While early editions of the New World Translation prior to the 1961 edition inserted the word “other” without brackets so that one could not tell the word is not in the original Greek, the 1961 edition and all others following it are more honest by enclosing the word in brackets. However, we again see translation bias against the Deity of Jesus Christ reoccurring in Watchtower literature on pages 20 and 21 of the February 1, 1992 issue of The Watchtower where the Watchtower’s insertion of “other” in Colossians 1:16 is again quoted without the brackets.

Colossians 1:16, 17, 20 The Greek word “Theotetos” meaning “Godship, Deity, Godhead” is mistranslated as “divine quality” to detract from the full Deity of God being attributed to Christ in this passage.

Colossians 2:9 The Greek phrase “Theou kai soteros emon” meaning “God and Savior of us” or “our God and Savior” is mistranslated as “god and of [the] Savior of us”. This word “the,” being inserted in brackets with no basis in the Greek text is yet another attempt of NWT translators to separate Christ from being God.

Titus 2:13 The Greek words “pneumaton” and “pneumas” meaning “spirits” is mistranslated as “spiritual life” and “spiritual lives” to fit with the Watchtower doctrine that denies the existence of the human “spirit” that lives on past death.

Hebrews 12:9, 23 For more information on The Jehovah's Witness Bible see:

Insight into the identity of the translators of the New World Translation Bible Jehovah's Witnesses and the name Jehovah in the NWT - Did Early Christians Call God by His Personal Name? SHOULD THE NAME “JEHOVAH” BE USED IN SCRIPTURE TO REFER TO GOD? —16 Questions for Jehovah’s Witnesses on the Use of God’s Name in the NWT (www.4witness.org) 101 Translations of John 1:1 disagree with The New World Translation (www.4witness.org) Reasons why the New World Translation's rendering of John 1:1 is Incorrect (www.4witness.org) How Can Jesus be "with" God and at the same time be God? I disapprove of the suddle racial theologies passed through this cult through the years which most JWs don't know about. I didn't until I was out. The founder Charles Taze russell made a remark about hispanic and other races"backward" I quote from the golden age 1927 page 141. Now what did he mean by that rascist quote? It's one thing if he would have said all races backward,but he said hispanic and "other" races backward.How much do you know about your founder Charles Taze Russell and your other presidents of the watchtower society and governing body? I know in my congregation lbrary there were no literature of Charles Taze russell's or Rutherfords or any of their publications. How come on your website you do not have Charles Taze Russell literature?(The last time I checked which was a day ago) Is it an embarrassing part of JW history the jws want to erase? You can't erase him, he is your founder! Think of the people who maybe interested, isn't it only fair to at least show history about your founder and have his publications there ? All of his theologies are entangled along with the other presidents in your literature including watchtower and awakes.Nothing to do with the holy bible facts. Remember god is truth and the truth is the bible and it never changes doctrines and has "new light". You asked a who i must choose(meaning god or man) , My answer is:I choose god and not man and their imperfect theologies. What makes you think raymond franz has left jehovah? Is it because he left the JWS? and we were always taught (I know i was) if you leave the organization you left jehovah as you call him. God judges by what is in your heart. I do not call him jehovah because that is not his correct name. Out of respect I call him GOD. ( You admit jehovah is not his correct name in your publications i'll try to find some and post it for you) . I actually love my chats with you I am able to look up all my old research and even find new research and post it for you.(Sorry if there are any grammer errors in this post i was typing fast) regards,tonya

Comment to len from tonya,Just one correction I mentioned in other post about JW website not mentioning Charles Taze Russell or your other presidents. They don't display him on none of your main pages or on the navigation bar on your website,the only way to read anything about Russell, or even Rutherford,Knorr is to type their names in the search box .i tried typing in founder,presidents,history nothing. you must type in their names or you won't get any results. My question is someone who is interested about the history of the founder of this organization how would they know to type in his name when they don't even know his name to begin with? And in order to understand the religion wouldn't you want to know about the founder who formed the organization? Russell's name should be on the main page along with the history of him and his theologies and the organization. I feel this is important because his theologies are expressed throughout the governing body and present publications. I discovered when you go to JW website and type in Charles Taze Russell they give you a brief summary of him ,nothing about his pyramid chart or his dangerous medical doctrines or his "miracle wheat" they briefly mention rutherford and knorr,but talk more about the organization. Also I mentioned in my other comment I would post to you my research on God's real name,this is what I found in my research:There is a common belief in modern Christendom that the divine name of God in the OT(Old translation) is "Jehovah." The most influential group advocating this pronunciation of God's name today is the Jehovah's Witnesses. This study is intended to demonstrate that the name "Jehovah" is not, and never was the name of God in the OT, but is an accidental, fabricated pronunciation of the divine name. Those who came up with this spelling/pronunciation did so from a misunderstanding of the Hebrew tetragrammaton "YHWH," as it appears in the OT text. The rendering of YHWH as "Yahweh" is much closer to the actual Hebrew name of God.

The way in which God’s name came to be spelled and pronounced as "Jehovah" is detailed with a lot of history and study of phonetics, but a few comments are in order here to help make some sense of the issue.

The Hebrew tetragrammaton, YHWH, is the way the name of God appears in the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew language is a consonantal language, possessing no vowels. Vowels were pronounced, but not written. They were transmitted orally from generation to generation. This may like a difficult system, and quite strange to us, but it is not that difficult. Just as you can decipher that THS S TH WY TH HBRW PPL WRT BCK THN, means "this is the way Hebrew people wrote back then," so could they easily pronounce words without vowels.

By about 200 B.C., after the time of the Exile, and due to superstition, Jews would no longer pronounce God’s name for fear that they would take it in vain by not saying it properly. Instead of pronouncing the tetragrammaton, they would say Adonai, which is the Hebrew word meaning Lord. Because of this superstition, no one today knows exactly how it was pronounced. This was also true of the Masoretic scribes who copied the Hebrew Scriptures. When the Masoretic scribes, in the 9th to 10th ceturies, invented a system of vowels to preserve the pronunciation of the Hebrew Bible, they also inserted some vowels into the tetragrammaton. Because they too, did not know exactly how to pronounce God’s name, and did not believe one should attempt to, they did not try to insert the correct vowels into the tetragrammaton. Instead, they inserted the vowels from the Hebrew word Adonai, which are the sounds of the short a, long o, and another a with the sound of the word awesome. The insertions of these vowels were not for the purpose of pronunciation, but to remind the reader to say Adonai when they came to God’s name instead of pronouncing God’s name. If it was to be spelled out, however, it would read "Yehowah" (the vocalic change to the first vowel is due to the fact that yod, the first letter of the tetragrammaton is a non-gutteral, and thus turns the a sound [compound shewa] to a shortened, short e sound [simple shewa]).

Later on, in the days of the Renaissance, people were discovering the ancient languages all over again. The Hebrew Scriptures were being learned and read. When people came to the tetragrammaton, they simply pronounced it with the inserted vowels, not realizing that the vowels did not belong to YHWH, but were intended as indicators to say Adonai. As a result, they pronounced God’s name as Yehowah.

The spelling of "Iehovah" entered the English language through William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible completed in 1537. He transliterated the tetragrammaton into the English language with the Masoretic vowel markings as had those in the Renaissance. The letter and sound of the English "J" was a later development of the English language, and so this spelling and pronunciation would not change to "Jehovah" until the late 17th century. Since this time many English speakers have pronounced God’s name as Jehovah.

So how exactly should we pronounce the Hebrew YHWH? Because of the fact that the vocalic tradition for the pronunciation of YHWH has not been preserved, we cannot be absolutely sure about its pronunciation. We can be fairly certain, however. Here is a brief examination of the divine name of God.

YHWH is the third person singular form, most likely coming from the Hebrew word hayah, which has the meaning of "to be." In Exodus 3:14, when Moses asked God for His name, God said His name was ehyeh. This is the first person form of hayah, meaning "I am." YHWH is the third person form meaning "He is."

The original pronunciation was probably YaHWeH. This seems to be the case by examining Jewish names. Many names contain part of the divine name, i.e. yah, and by examing the vowels that they used to construct their names with the divine abbreviation attached, we can get a feel for how YHWH was originally pronounced. We conclude from the examining names such as Joshua, Jehoshaphat, Elijah, and even the word hallelujah (hallel=praise; yah=Yahweh), that YH was pronounced as yah. We also have evidence that Yahweh is probably the correct pronunciation from examining the Greek’s tranliteration of the divine name as iaoue or iabe.

In conclusion, although it is not necessarily wrong to say God’s name as Jehovah, by no means can it be claimed that Jehovah is the name of God that has only been restored to us in these recent times. At best Jehovah can only be claimed to be an acceptable way of pronouncing God’s name in the English language, and at worst it could be said to be a phonetic corruption of God’s name. The probable pronunciation of God’s revealed name is Yahweh.In Exodus 3:15 God designates Himself by a name, indicated in the original Hebrew by the four consonants YHWH (vowels were not supplied in the text). These four letters as written in Hebrew are referred to as the tetragrammaton. Today we are not sure how this name was pronounced, though Hebrew scholars suggest "Yahweh" or "Yaywah." More important than the actual pronunciation of the name, of course, was its meaning to Moses and to Pharaoh, as the context of Exodus chapter three reveals. Additionally, since God reveals that He has called this name upon Himself to time indefinite (forever), we need to understand its meaning for us.

Jehovah's Witnesses, since 1931, like to credit themselves with having a `corner on the market' with God's name. Yet, it was not until 1931 that they took their present name. Charles Taze Russell named the group "Bible Students". Rutherford announced a new name for their group, "Jehovah's Witnesses." Rutherford's intention was to set the organization fully apart from the rest of the world who called themselves Christian.

Why did the Watchtower choose the pronunciation "Jehovah" to represent the Divine Name? Apparently because this form was the most common vocalization of the tetragrammaton (YHWH), being used by the King James Bible and a host of others. Today the Watchtower Society does not claim that "Jehovah" is the most accurate way to pronounce the name; indeed, it could not have been, for the "J" and "V" sounds are foreign to the Hebrew language. The Watchtower argument mainly consists of attacking the disuse of the name. They direct criticism at the churches for failing to emphasize that God has a personal name, and that it should be used regularly. This strikes the initiate as a sound argument against the churches, and the JW is seldom countered on this issue. In this article I hope to refute a few of the Watchtower arguments as represented in their recent (1984) booklet, The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, as well as some of the arguments used in the Appendix 1A of the new Reference edition (1984) of the New World Translation, and the introduction to the Greek-English interlinear produced by the Watchtower.

Some modern scholars argue against the use of the expression "Jehovah," choosing Yahweh or perhaps no vocalization of the tetragram at all, as is the custom of the orthodox Jews today. The arguments of the former mainly consist of pointing out that "Jehovah" was most certainly not the original pronunciation, and that "Jehovah" was a term invented, or at least first used, by the Spanish monk Raymundus Martini in his book Pugeo Fidei in the year 1270 A.D. #1

The latter argument, which is that of the Jewish faith, is based on tradition, the name being considered too sacred to pronounce in common conversation. According to the Mishnah (Rabbinical teachings handed down over the centuries) we read: ". . . In the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written, but in the provinces by a substituted word." (Sotah 7, 6) Sanhedrin 7, 5, records that a blasphemer was not guilty unless he pronounced the Name. Sanhedrin 10, 1, lists those who pronounce the Name according to its letters as having no share in the world to come.

The Watchtower counter-argument, which holds some weight, is that it does not matter how you pronounce the name, since in every language the pronunciation of the same name will differ, sometimes far from the original, but that you use the name. The name "Jesus" is cited as an example, as is "Joshua" and "Jeremiah." since in Hebrew these names were pronounced more like "Yeshua," "Yehoshua" and "Yermiyahu." They argue that we do not fail to say "Jesus" just because it was not the way his name was actually pronounced. They charge those who do not use "Jehovah" with being inconsistent, since these same ones use the name of Jesus. So far, the Watchtower argumentation is logical. Meaning of the Name Thus it is evident that the original pronunciation of God's name is no longer known. Nor is it really important. If it were, then God Himself would have made sure that it was preserved for us to use. The important thing is to use God's name according to its conventional pronunciation in our own language. The Divine Name, p. 7

The above statement sounds logical, and the first three sentences are the same arguments used by Bible language scholars. But history, both of Bible translation and the first century church, reveal the last sentence to be the Watchtower's own thinking. For now, let's consider the meaning of the name.

In the New World Translation, Exodus 3:14 is translated,

"At this God said to Moses: `I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.' And he added: `This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, "I SHALL PROVE TO BE" has sent me to you.'"

The Watchtower Translating Committee was well aware that this verse is translated by most reputable scholars as "I AM THAT I AM," and that this verse is used to support the view that Jesus was claiming to be equal to Jehovah in John 8:58, when he said in answer to his identity and origin, "I AM" (Greek: ego eimi). In order to avoid all possibilities of this understanding, the Watchtower has used a `future tense' approach. Yet, Keil & Delitzsch, in their Commentary On The Old Testament (Vol. 1, p.74) say:

If we seek for the meaning of (YHWH), the expression "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" in Ex. 3:14, is neither to be rendered "esomaios esomai" (Aq., Theodt.), "I shall be that I shall be" (Luther), nor "I shall be that which I will or am to be" (M. Baumgarten). Nor does it mean, "He who will be because He is Himself, the God of the future" (Hofmann). For in names formed from the third person imperfect, the imperfect is not a future, but an aorist. According to the fundamental signification of the imperfect, names so formed point out a person as distinguished by a frequently or constantly manifested quality, in other words, they express a distinctive characteristic. The Vulgate gives it correctly: "ego sum qui sum," "I am who I am."

In the New Testament, Jesus and the disciples refer often to the name of God. The emphasis in the Hebrew understanding was not the actual pronunciation of the name, but in what the name implies; its authority and characteristics. The same is true in Exodus 3:13, where Moses asks God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, `The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, `What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" Yet, the Israelites knew God's name (see Gen. 26:25, 28:13), at least as far as its pronunciation. They were in reality inquiring into the nature expressed in that name.

As Dr. Robert Countess points out in his book, The Jehovah's Witnesses New Testament, on page 26,

"If the Witnesses are to be a people of God's name, and if His name had been preserved in the Greek autographa in ancient Hebrew letters, then it seems reasonable to expect that pronunciation of His name would be preserved also."

But such has not been the case. Rather, as we shall see soon, being a "people for His name" (since the coming of Christ) meant to carry the name of JESUS, not the name "Jehovah."

Did Jesus Use the Name? One of the Watchtower's main appeals:

On one occasion, Jesus stood up in a synagogue and read a portion of the scroll of Isaiah. The section he read was what we today call Isaiah 61:1,2, where God's name appears more than once. (Luke 4:16-21) Would he have refused to pronounce the divine name there, substituting `Lord' or `God'? Of course not. That would have meant following the unscriptural tradition of the Jewish religious leaders.

Yes, it would be most unreasonable to think that Jesus held back from using God's name, especially when he quoted from those portions of the Hebrew scriptures that contained it. The Divine Name, p. 15, 16

There are at least two dogmatic assumptions and one false assumption in their argument. First of all, they assume that the tetragram was actually in the text that Jesus read. The Divine Name booklet, their reference Bible, and the Kingdom Interlinear all go to great lengths to point out that SOME of the earliest copies of the Septuagint (or LXX- the Greek translation of the Old Testament, used often by Jesus) had the YHWH written in Hebrew script wherever the Name occurred. Compared with the great number of manuscripts that do not have the tetragram, however, such texts are a minority. Further, there is simply no way of knowing if the scrolls Jesus read from had the tetragram in them or not. There were too many different kinds of translations in use in the first century. R. Longenecker, in his book, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (p. 66) says that Jesus

"at times engaged himself in textual selection among the various Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek versions then current."

On page 60-61 of his book, Longenecker says regarding the quotations attributed to Jesus in the gospels:

"The great majority are septuagintal in character. . . . In a few cases . . . it is the LXX reading, as against the reading of the M(asoretic) T(ext) or known Targums, that provide Jesus with the wording."

Since the majority of Septuagint texts available today have no trace of the tetragram, the likelihood is great that he often quoted from texts which did not contain it.

The second dogmatic assumption is that Jesus quoted literally from the texts. Even if the tetragram was in that particular scroll, that is no guarantee he read it word for word or pronounced the tetragram.

For instance, consider Jesus' words in Luke 4:18, where he quotes from Isaiah 61:1. Although it generally matches the reading of the LXX (Septuagint), it is partly contrary to both the LXX and the MT (Masoretic Text), and partly agrees with the MT against the LXX. Additionally, Jesus adds a line from Isaiah 58:6 in his quotation. Another interesting insight is in the writings of Matthew. The Watchtower tries to develop the point that the gospel of Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew, and as such, must have contained the tetragram. Yet, although Matthew's citations are of the Masoretic, or existing Hebrew text, his quotations of Jesus' words are predominantly from the Septuagint, which most likely did not contain the tetragram. This indicates Jesus leaned towards the Septuagint, and perhaps even read the text in Greek!

The third and false assumption made by the Watchtower is that the synagogues and the religious leaders would have tolerated his teaching in the synagogues or credit him by saying, "Teacher, you have spoken well," (Luke 20:37,38) after uttering the Divine Name. Historical records in the Mishnah as well as Josephus and other sources record the Jews as being loathe to allow the Name to be used, and certainly would not have tolerated it by any but the High Priest. Yet there remains absolutely no record of the Jews attacking Jesus for using the Name, which would have been one of their greatest tools against him. In all likelihood he would have been thrown out of the synagogue and the scribes and Pharisees would have refused to listen to his speech at all. Rather, he is accused of blasphemy for attributing the Name to Himself! (i.e., its reputation and authority - see John 8:58; 10:33).

Did the Apostles Use the Name? The Watchtower argues:

Did Jesus' followers in the first century use God's name? They had been commanded by Jesus to make disciples of people of all the nations. (Matt. 28:19,20) Many of the people to be preached to had no conception of the God who had revealed himself to the Jews by the name Jehovah. How would the Christians be able to identify the true God to them? Would it be enough to call him God or Lord? No. The nations had their own gods and lords. (1 Cor. 8:5) How could the Christians have made a clear difference between the true God and the false ones? Only by using the true God's name.

Thus, the disciple James remarked during a conference of the elders at Jerusalem: "Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of the a people for his name. And with this the words of the Prophets agree." (Acts 15:14,15) The Apostle Peter, in his well-known speech at Pentecost, pointed out a vital part of the Christian message when he quoted the words of the prophet Joel: "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe." Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21.

The apostle Paul leaves no doubt about the importance to him of God's name. In his letter to the Romans, he quotes the same words by the prophet Joel and goes on to encourage fellow Christians to show their faith in that statement by going out to preach about God's name to others in order that these, too, might be saved. (Romans 10:13-15) Later he wrote in his letter to Timothy: "Let everyone naming the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness." (2 Tim. 2:19).

However, Jesus and his followers had prophesied that an apostasy would occur in the Christian congregation. The apostle Peter had written: "There will also be false teachers among you." These warnings were fulfilled. One result was that God's name was pushed into the background. It even got removed from copies and translations of the Bible! --The Divine Name, p. 16

To start with, the Watchtower assumes that the Hebrew God had no reputation among the surrounding nations. The Jews were well-known monotheists who worshipped one God, and the name Yahweh conjured up its own reputation among the nations surrounding them. But the real question is, what name were the Christians using to identify themselves with the name Yahweh or Jesus? There is not one indication that the apostolic Christians were ever called "Yahweh's" or "Jehovah's Witnesses," or that they ever even used the Name. In quoting from the Old Testament prophecies where the Name occurred, they consistently apply the Name prophetically to Jesus Christ! Additionally, they were by divine providence called "Christians," the only Biblical name they can be called (the expression "Yahweh's witnesses" applied only to the Jews in the Mosaic Law covenant. Yet Christians are spoken of as being married to Christ. (compare Isa. 54:16 with Eph. 5:25-27).

Let's consider some passages where the OT is speaking of Jehovah, and the New Testament writers quote it and apply it to Christ:

[1] Hebrews 1:10 is a quotation of the LXX version of Ps. 102:25. The Psalm is unquestionably speaking of Jehovah, yet the writer of Hebrews applies it to Christ! Knowing this, the New World Translating Committee broke their own rules and refused to insert "Jehovah" into Hebrews 1:10. *2

[2] 1 Peter 3:14,15 is a quote from Isa. 8:12,13, which obviously contained the tetragram in the Hebrew text and referred to "sanctifying Jehovah in our hearts." Yet, Peter paraphrases it and applies it directly to Christ, saying that we are to sanctify CHRIST in our hearts! Again, their Translating Committee has shown bias in not following their own rules. Even the footnote in the Kingdom Interlinear shows that many of the modern Hebrew Bibles have "Jehovah" in 1 Peter 3:15. But since that would identify Christ with Jehovah, the Translating Committee could not face up to it.

[3] Acts 2:21 quotes from a prophecy in Joel 2:28-32 that contained the tetragram in the Hebrew text, saying, "Whoever calls upon the name of Jehovah will be delivered." Yet Peter quotes it and applies it to Jesus in Acts 2:21, as verse 38 says, "And Peter said to them, `Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"

Additionally, the name of Jesus takes great precedence over "Jehovah" in the New Testament. Just in the book of Acts alone, note the overwhelming importance of the name of Christ, with no mention of the covenant name of God:

Men healed in the Name Acts 3:6,16; 4:10,30 Salvation in the Name Acts 4:12; 10:43; 22:16 Baptism in the Name Acts 2:38; 8:16 Forgiveness through the Name Acts 10:43 Teaching and preaching in the Name Acts 8:12; 4:18; 5:28 Calling upon the Name Acts 2:21; 9:14,21 Speaking in the Name Acts 4:17; 9:27,29 Suffering for the name Acts 9:16; 15:26; 5:41 Bearing the Name before the nations Acts 9:15 Paul once opposed the Name Acts 26:9 Called or designated by the Name Acts 11:26

The New Testament record shows that the Name of Jesus holds primary importance, rather than the covenant Name of Jehovah. This is in line with Hebrews 1:1,2 where it is said that God, though speaking through his covenant people in times past, is now speaking through the Son; who is the exact representation of the Father (but not the Father). Note also other NT texts that speak of the Name of Jesus as being the most important name there is: Eph. 1:20,21; Phil. 2:9; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Cor. 1:2; Col. 3:17; 1 John 3:23; Rev. 2:3, 13. Jesus also spoke of the importance of his name in passages such as: Mt. 7:22; 10:22; 12:15-21; 18:5,20; 19:29; 24:9; 28:19,20 (just to cite Matthew).

The history of the New Testament text reveals that it was the apostolic (1st century) Christians who played down the importance of preserving the OT name of God, for Jesus was the Name they were concerned with. This will be discussed next.

Ancient Textual Discoveries The main Watchtower arguments:

Some very old fragments of the Septuagint Version that actually existed in Jesus' day have survived down to our day, and it is noteworthy that the personal name of God appeared in them. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 512) says: "Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by Kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters in the Greek text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the Old Testament in the first centuries A.D." Therefore, whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in Hebrew or Greek, they would come across the divine name.

Thus, Professor George Howard, of the University of Georgia, U.S.A., made this comment: "When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations." (Biblical Archaeology Review, March 1978, page 14) What authority would they have had to do otherwise? - The Divine Name, p. 24

Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Kyrios, "Lord" or Theos, "God."

Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: "Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God's name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for New Testament studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name . . . was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate [abbreviation for Kyrios, `Lord']. This removal of the Tetragrammaton, in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the `Lord God' and the `Lord Christ' which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself."

We concur with the above, with this exception: We do not consider this view a `theory,' rather, a presentation of the facts of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts. - Appendix, Reference Edition of the New World Translation, 1984, p. 1564

In answer to these statements, first we must consider that the portions of the Septuagint found which contain the tetragram are Jewish, and none may be of Christian origin. We are not so much concerned with what the Jews did, but what the apostolic Christians did in their translations. C. H. Roberts, in his book, Society, Manuscript and Belief in Early Egyptian Christianity (p. 77) states:

"Extant versions of the Septuagint coming to us from Jewish sources contain the tetragrammaton whereas only two Septuagint copies that contain the tetragrammaton may have possibly be of a Christian source." Roberts describes these two Christian sources as "a Jewish form of Christianity (which) persisted in Oxyhynchus, and a possible explanation of these two eccentric texts would be that they were the work of Jewish-Christian scribes." (p. 34, 57)

One of these earliest manuscripts that the Watchtower and the New International Dictionary are referring to is the translation done by Aquila, an apostate from Christianity. Aquila rendered passages so as to counter the Christian's arguments, but his style was the exception, rather than the rule. (see Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts by Kenyon, p. 56) Aquila was included in the "later Jewish translators" referred to in the New International Dictionary.

Certainly, Jesus and his disciples came across the tetragram occasionally in their reading, but when and how often is anyone's guess. An effective argument cannot be made from speculation on this, though the Watchtower has tried.

Regarding Professor Howard, his thesis is simply a theory, and he admits it as such. He does not even begin to suggest that the tetragram be restored to the text of the New Testament in any of his writings. Such tampering cannot be done by an honest translator, since there are simply no ancient manuscripts with the tetragram to translate from.

When the Watchtower asks "What authority would they have to do otherwise," meaning how could they NOT copy the tetragram, they ignore the fact that there were no "rules" that the early church had to follow. They simply didn't think it that important to preserve the tetragram. Evidence from the first century Christian writings reveal that the Christians themselves replaced the tetragram with their own form of abbreviations, called "nomina sacra" by language scholars. These symbols may have been produced by the Jerusalem church before 70 A.D., or at the latest by the year 100. (Remember, the Bible as we know it was not even canonized until much later!)

Scholars also tell us that there is no connection between the "nomina sacra" and the practice of translating the tetragram as KYRIOS or THEOS. It was not due to superstition or tradition, but was rather a convenience used by the early church. The "nomina sacra" were not used on just the tetragrammaton, either, but also on the names "Christ" and "Jesus." This was done by the apostolic church itself, rather than in the "second or third century," as the Watchtower dogmatically asserts. *3

In summary: Early Christian manuscripts used abbreviated forms of sacred names, while some Jewish manuscripts of the LXX retained the tetragram. And since the NT is written by Christians for Christians, the Watchtower's use of Jewish manuscripts is irrelevant.

Missing the Point Eventually, as we saw earlier, the name was restored to many translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. But what about the Greek Scriptures? Well, Bible translators and students without God's name, some parts of the Christian Greek Scriptures are very difficult to understand properly. Restoring the name is a big help in increasing the clarity and comprehensibility of this portion of the inspired Bible.

For example, consider the words of Paul to the Romans, as they appear in the Authorized Version: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13) Whose name do we have to call on to be saved? Since Jesus is often spoken of as "Lord," and one scripture even says: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," should we conclude that Paul was here speaking about Jesus?Acts 16:31, AV.

No, we should not. A marginal reference to Romans 10:13 in the Authorized Version points us to Joel 2:32 in the Hebrew Scriptures. If you check that reference, you will find that Paul was actually quoting the words of Joel in his letter to the Romans; and what Joel said in the original Hebrew was: "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe." (New World Translation) Yes, Paul meant here that we should call on the name of Jehovah. Hence, while we have to believe in Jesus, our salvation is closely linked with a proper appreciation of God's name.

This example demonstrates how the removal of the name of God from the Greek Scriptures contributed to confusing Jesus and Jehovah in the minds of many. Undoubtedly, it contributed greatly to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity! - The Divine Name, p. 26

The "Bible translators" and "students" mentioned by the Watchtower that had difficulty in understanding the NT are apparently none other than Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. If you realize as did the inspired NT writers that Jesus shares the nature of his Father and his Name, there is no problem. On the other hand, if you believe that Jesus is a creature, an angel, there are serious "discrepancies" that must be translated out of the Bible to retain your theology. When an apostle quotes an OT passage about Jehovah and is obviously applying it to Jesus (such as Romans 10:13), you must perform gymnastics in translation or interpretation to retain your view, and this is what the Watchtower has done. How sad that they miss the point of the transition between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Note the words of Herman Bavinck in his book, Our Reasonable Faith: (p. 313)

The use and significance of the name in the Old Testament is carried over to Christ in the New. The Name of the Lord, or the Name alone, was in the Old Testament the denomination of the revealed glory of God. In the days of the New Testament that glory has appeared in the person of Jesus Christ; and thus the strength of the church now stands in His name. . . . the name of Jesus Christ was a sort of compendium of the confession of the church, the strength of its faith, and the anchor of its hope. Just as Israel in ancient times gloried in the name of Jehovah, so the church of the New Testament finds its strength in the name of Jesus Christ. In this name the name of Jehovah has come into its full revelation. This is the main point that the Watchtower has missed--far overshadowing inconsistencies in the churches. Like the Pharisees in Jesus' day, they missed out on the real Messiah!

Is the Watchtower Honest? Would a translator have any right to restore the name, in view of the fact that existing manuscripts do not have it? Yes, he would have that right. Most Greek lexicons recognize that often the word "Lord" in the Bible refers to Jehovah. For example, in its section under the Greek word Kyrios, Robinson's A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament says that it means "God as the Supreme Lord and sovereign of the universe, usually in Septuagint for Hebrew Jehovah." Hence, in places where the Christian Greek Scripture writers quote the earlier Hebrew Scriptures, the translator has the right to render the word Kyrios as "Jehovah" wherever the divine name appeared in the Hebrew original. - The Divine Name, p. 26, 27

One translation that boldly restores God's name with good authority is the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. This version, currently available in 11 modern languages, including English, has restored God's name every time that a portion of the Hebrew Scriptures containing it is quoted in the Greek Scriptures. Altogether, the name appears with a sound basis 237 times in that translation of the Greek Scriptures. The Divine Name, p. 27

As to whether a translator has the right to introduce something into the New Testament which cannot be found in any available ancient documents, simply on the basis of theological bias, I will let another translator answer. Stephen T. Byington translated The Bible in Living English, and the Watchtower Society purchased the rights to print and distribute this version of the Bible due to its use of the name "Jehovah" in the Old Testament (but not in the New). Byington himself said this in review of the Watchtower's "Christian Greek Scriptures":

If we need to argue the point of translating "the Lord" where the Greek says "the Lord", my argument would be that when Jesus and the apostles and their friends spoke an Old Testament text aloud, they said "the Lord" for "Jehovah" even in so careful a quotation as Mark 12:29 (the newly found manuscript of Isaiah may be cited as fresh evidence that the custom of saying "the Lord" began before the time of Christ, for it has cases of wavering between the readings "Jehovah" and "the Lord", and the explanation of such wavering is that the two were pronounced alike), and we cannot presume that the apostles wrote otherwise than they spoke. And it is a translator's business to reproduce his original. *4 The Watchtower would do well to heed the words of one that they so admire for putting the name "Jehovah" into his own Old Testament translation. But they bridge the gap between presumptuousness and outright dishonesty when they make the statement that they have "restored God's name every time that a portion of the Hebrew Scriptures containing it is quoted in the Greek Scriptures." The Watchtower did not translate "Jehovah" into 1 Peter 3:15 and Acts 2:21, though the OT passages that they are quoted from contain the tetragram there. To do such would be admitting that somehow Jesus is referred to as "Jehovah" in the OT.

In Conclusion. There is simply no scholarly justification for introducing the tetragram (let alone the less accurate "Jehovah") into the text of the NT. The absence of the tetragram in any NT manuscript, out of over 13,000 available, demolishes their case. If God was so concerned about the preservation of his covenant name, one wonders why there is no evidence that the apostles perpetuated it in their writings. Further, to imply that the name "Jehovah" is the primary name we are to be concerned with contradicts the continual emphasis on the name of Jesus, as has been established. While the tetragram is not to be found in any NT manuscripts, the name of Jesus is found over 900 times.

Christians are to make the name of the Father known, as Jesus emphasized (Mt. 6:9; John 17:26). How do they do that? By recognizing that Jesus Christ was chosen by the Father to embody all the glory and reputation surrounding that Name (Phil. 2:11), and that to fail to identify with the name of Jesus will cause our loss of life (Acts 4:12).

The motive of the Governing Body, as it always has been and will be, is to make themselves stand out as being separate and distinct from the churches. Whether the issue be the cross, holidays, the word "church," or the name "Jehovah," the primary issue always revolves around their sectarian spirit. When you pin them down on any of these issues and refute them step by step, they concede that the issue is not really that important, but then switch to another exclusive doctrine as proof of their being God's chosen people. Fortunately, many even in the organization see through the scholastic dishonesty and are finding out that the supreme manifestation of Jehovah is in His Son, Jesus Christ. Even the Pharisees revered the name Yahweh greatly, but failed to use the real key to life - the name of JESUS (John 5:37-40).

Footnotes: #1 Since then, as pointed out profusely in the Watchtower booklet, churches all over the world used variations of "Jehovah" and decorated their churches and statues, and writings with it. Strangely, it does not seem to bother them that this practice was first instituted by Christendom (their object of attack) and is used in many Christian churches all over the world to this day.

#2 The Watchtower's own Kingdom Interlinear translation says, on page 18 of the foreword:

How is a modern translator to know or determine when to render the Greek words KYRIOS and THEOS into the divine name in his version? By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then he must refer back to the original to locate whether the divine name appears there.

#4 [The Christian Century, May 9, 1951; p.589] "God Is Truth ,and Truth is the Word and the Word is the Bible which never changes doctrines or has "new light"best regards ,tonya(sorry for any grammer errors I type fast)